Defamation law has continually evolved to address new technologies, but live-streaming presents challenges that require innovative judicial interpretation. A recent Irish court case involving live-streamed defamatory remarks at a church event is a groundbreaking example. The ruling highlights both the adaptability of defamation law and the necessity for individuals and organisations to maintain vigilance in the digital age.
This post explores the pivotal aspects of the case, the court’s considerations, and what it means for publishers, content creators, and anyone engaging in live streaming.
The Court Case in Focus
The Circuit Court in Tullamore recently presided over a case of live-streamed defamation. The incident took place in May 2023 during a baptism ceremony at Cornerstone Slieve Bloom Church. A teenage girl made remarks about her estranged father, who claimed the statements were defamatory.
These remarks reached beyond the congregation of 80 church members and were live-streamed on the church’s public Facebook page, increasing their audience significantly. The father initiated defamation proceedings against the church, not his daughter, placing unique questions before the court.
Key Issues Considered by the Court
Judge Meehan identified several novel legal issues:
- Could the church be classified as the publisher responsible for the daughter’s statements?
- If so, would the church be viewed as a primary publisher, like a broadcaster, or a secondary publisher with limited liability?
- Did the church qualify for the defence of innocent publication or qualified privilege?
- Should the father’s decision not to sue his daughter influence the case?
The court concluded that the statements were defamatory and identified the father, even though he was not explicitly named.
Court’s Findings on Publication Responsibility
Judge Meehan ruled that the church occupied different roles based on the method of publication:
- Within the Church Premises:
-
- For the physical audience of 80 attendees, the church was considered a secondary publisher.
- The defence of qualified privilege applied in this case, absolving the church of liability for this audience.
- Through Facebook Live Stream:
-
- The church was deemed a primary publisher concerning the online audience.
- Unlike its internal congregation, the church could not rely on the defences of innocent publication or qualified privilege for this audience, as the content was accessible to the public without privacy restrictions.
The court’s judgment emphasised the distinct responsibilities that live streamers bear depending on the nature of their content and its accessibility.
Damages Awarded
The court initially set damages at €30,000 but later lowered this amount considering multiple factors:
- The mode of publication (split 40% for the physical congregation and 60% for Facebook live viewers).
- The involvement of the daughter as the original speaker, even though she was not part of the proceedings.
The final award amounted to €14,400.
Implications for Live Streaming and Digital Media
The case provides a significant precedent for handling live-streamed defamation. It establishes that organisations engaging in live streaming, even for informal or community-centred purposes, can be held liable as primary publishers of defamatory content.
This ruling obligates churches, schools, businesses, and individuals streaming public events to carefully monitor and manage the content they broadcast. Here are the key learnings:
1. Understand Your Role as a Publisher
When live-streaming content, you may be classified as a primary publisher. This classification means you can bear full responsibility for any defamatory statements made during the broadcast.
2. Implement Content Moderation Measures
Organisations should implement controls such as pre-approved scripts, rehearsal requirements, or monitoring mechanisms during live events. This can minimize the risk of unforeseen defamatory remarks.
3. Privacy Settings Are Crucial
Limit public accessibility to live streams by implementing privacy restrictions, such as streaming only to a closed group or members-only audience. This step can significantly reduce liability risks.
4. Defamation Law and Digital Platforms
Digital platforms introduce added complexity for defamation claims. Unlike physical gatherings, online publications reach a broader and often undefined audience. This increased reach heightens risks and amplifies the legal responsibility of publishers.
Seeking Advice About Defamation Risks
The case underscores how rapidly defamation law is adapting to technological advancements. The potential for harm in digital and live-stream broadcasts is significant, which may lead to organisations unintentionally incurring liabilities. Whether you’re an event organiser, a content creator, or part of a corporate entity, understanding your legal responsibilities is crucial.
Protecting Your Reputation
If you are concerned about defamation or preserving your reputation, understanding legal options is essential. HOMS Assist provides expert advice for individuals and organisations involved in defamation disputes. With over 50 years of experience and thorough knowledge of Irish defamation law, we are here to help you restore and protect your good name.
Contact HOMS Assist today for advice tailored to your unique case. Learn more here.
